Trial reportBMC health services research2012
Cost-effectiveness of counselling, graded-exercise and usual care for chronic fatigue: evidence from a randomised trial in primary care.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of Interventions for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Pooled it
- Behavioural modification interventions for medically unexplained symptoms in primary care: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of interventions for medically unexplained symptoms: A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of chronic fatigue self-management versus usual care: a pilot randomized controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2014Trial
- Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Review
- Handling Missing Data in Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Review with Future Recommendations.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2017Review
- Cost-Utility of Home-Based Fatigue Self-Management versus Usual Care for the Treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.Fatigue : biomedicine, health & behavior · 2017Article
- Reliability and Construct Validity of Two Versions of Chalder Fatigue Scale among the General Population in Mainland China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFatigue is common and has been shown to result in high economic costs to society. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of two active therapies, graded-exercise (GET) and counselling (COUN) with usual care plus a self-help booklet (BUC) for people presenting with chronic fatigue.
methodsA randomised controlled trial was conducted with participants consulting for fatigue of over three months' duration recruited from 31 general practices in South East England and allocated to one of three arms. Outcomes and use of services were assessed at 6-month follow-up. The main outcome measure used in the economic evaluation was clinically significant improvements in fatigue, measured using the Chalder fatigue scale. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net-benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.
resultsFull economic and outcome data at six months were available for 163 participants; GET = 51, COUN = 58 and BUC = 54. Those receiving the active therapies (GET and COUN) had more contacts with care professionals and therefore higher costs, these differences being statistically significant. COUN was more expensive and less effective than the other two therapies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GET compared to BUC was equal to £987 per unit of clinically significant improvement. However, there was much uncertainty around this result.
conclusionThis study does not provide a clear recommendation about which therapeutic option to adopt, based on efficiency, for patients with chronic fatigue. It suggests that COUN is not cost-effective, but it is unclear whether GET represents value for money compared to BUC. Clinical Trial Registration number at ISRCTN register: 72136156.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.